Smt.V.B.Nirmala Geethamba,B.A.,LL.M.,

IN THE FAMILY COURT- CUM-IV ADDL.DISTRICT & SESSIONS

JUDGE’S COURT AT VIJAYAWADA

Present: Smt V.B.Nirmala Geethamba, B.A., LL.M.,

Judge, Family Court-cum-IV Addl. District and

Sessions Judge, Vijayawada.

Friday, 19th day of February, 2016.

O.P.No.743/2011

Between:-

Pagolu Arun Kumar, S/o Kumar, Hindu, 25

years,D.No.17-6-30/A,Pezzonipet, .. Petitioner

Vijayawada.

And

Pagolu Naga Priyanka, W/o Arun Kumar, D/o Ambati Bala Raju, Hindu, 19 years, D.no.201, RamapriyaEnclave,Seetharampuram, …Respondent. Vijayawada

This petition is coming on 11.1.2016 for hearing before me in the presence of Sri P.y.Kiran Kumar, Advocate, for the petitioner and of Sri Narra Nageswara Rao, Advocate for the respondent; and upon perusing the petition, counter, and other material on record, having stood over till this day for consideration, this Court made the following:

ORDER

This petition filed by the petitioner U/s. 22 of Special

Marriage Act, 1954 for restitution of conjugal rights.

2. The petitioner’s case in precise is that the marriage of petitioner and respondent was performed on 4.5.2011 at Vijayawada in the presence of friends, elders without willing of both side parents and it was registered by K.Prabhudas, A.S.Nagar, Vijayawada. The petitioner and respondent fell in love in 2008 and both are decided marry and informed the same to their parents, who refused for the same. Then they got married without consent of parents of both sides. They lived happily for four days. Later the parents of respondent filed a case against the petitioner before Patamata P.S. as the respondent missed. Police brought them and gave counseling to them on 16.6.2011 and that the respondent went to her parents house as 2 the father of respondent given undertaking to give grand reception to their marriage after few days.

3. After the father of respondent not send the respondent to lead marital life with him. On that he filed W.P.No.15461/2011 before the Hon'ble High Court. The respondent herself appeared before High

Court and admitted marriage and she presently staying with her parents and it was disposed. Later also the father of respondent not send the respondent to lead marital life with him. On 28.8.2011 he got issued legal notice to the respondent, the same was received by her and kept quiet. Hence, the petition.

4. The respondent filed counter denying material allegations of the petition and stated that she was studying 1st Year B Tech in Vijaya

Institute, Enikepadu, Vijayawada and on 4.5.2011 the petitioner and his relative came to college and told that her mother was expired and took her to outside from the college on his motor bike to the office of

Akula Kiran Kumar, Kedareswarapet, Vijayawada and he tried to tie tali on her neck and she obstructed for the same. The petitioner and others beat her and the petitioner forcibly tied tali in her neck and taken away her to the house of K.Y.Das, Pastor and given Rs.3,000/- and obtained marriage certificate. Later taken her to a photo studio and obtained photos of respondent and petitioner. When police called, the petitioner and his mother and brothers demanded her by threatening with her dire consequences to agree for the marriage.

Thus, the marriage is not a valid marriage and prayed to dismiss the petition.

5. During the course of trial, the petitioner himself examined as PW.1. One M.Dinesh Kumar examined as P.W.2. Exs.A1 to A10 marked. To rebut the evidence of the Petitioner, the respondent 3 herself examined as R.W.1. Her father examined as R.W.2. Ex.B1 to

B4 marked on her behalf.

6.Both the counsel present and heard.

7.Upon considering the rival contentions, the point for consideration is: Whether the petitioner is entitled for restitution of conjugal rights as prayed by him?

8.POINT:

The specific contention of the petitioner is that he and respondent fell in love and got married on 4.5.2011 as per Social

Marriage before Marriage Registrar, AS Nagar, Vijayawada and the same was registered in the presence of friends without willing of both side parents. Thereafter they resided at A.S.Nagar, Vijayawada. In the meanwhile the parents of respondent foisted a false case against him in Patamata P.S. in Cr.No.219/2011. After recording their statements, his father given undertaking that he will arrange grand reception after few days and taken the respondent along with them.

Thereafter they were not allow to meet his wife even though he made several efforts. He further argued that then he approached

Commissioner of Police for justice, thereafter he filed

W.P.no.15461/2011 to produce his wife. When the petitioner went to respondent’s house to meet his wife, the 2nd sister of the respondent filed a false case against him and others in Cr.No.203/2011 and the same was referred as mistake of fact vide order No.1736/2011.

Thereafter he got issued legal notice on 28.8.2011, and prayed to order for restitution of conjugal rights in his favour.

9. The learned counsel for the respondent argued that the petitioner taken away the respondent who is studying B Tech course at relevant point of time from the college under the guise that his mother was died on 4.5.2011 and that taken her to one Corporator office namely Akula Kiran Kumar under a threat, he tried to tie 4

Mangalasutram on her neck when she was protested he threatened that he will pour acid on the face of her sister and her parents. Due to fear he forcibly tied Tali on her neck and also taken her to church of

K.P.Das who is a pastor and given Rs.3,000/- to the said Pastor and taken false certificate and the same was not signed by the respondent.

He further argued that the petitioner not examined the witnesses who were present at the time of registration of marriage before K.P.Das and also not examined the said K.P.Das to prove the marriage between the petitioner and respondent.

10. The respondent counsel further argued that there is no marriage between the petitioner and respondent and the same was proved by petitioner and respondent and mere exchange of garland itself is not form of marriage and that they are not became wife and husband. He further argued that under coercion the petitioner obtained consent of the respondent and she was not consented party, thereafter several cases were filed against each other. In the above circumstances the petitioner not entitled for restitution of conjugal rights as there is no marriage existed between petitioner and respondent in the eye of law and prayed to dismiss the petition.

11. To prove their contentions, the petitioner himself examined as P.W.1. Exs.A1 to A10 marked. To rebut the evidence of petitioner, the respondent herself examined as R.W.1. Exs.B1 to B4 marked.

12. Admitted facts:

The petitioner belongs to Christian community and the respondent belongs to Yadava Community and Hindu by religion.

There is no dispute that there are several cases pending between parents of respondent and petitioner. The petitioner filed Hebious

Corpus petition vide WP No.15461/2011 before the Hon'ble High Court against the State and father of respondent and it is marked as Ex.B2.

5

It is also an admitted fact that the elder sister of the respondent filed criminal case against the petitioner for the offence U/s.448, 323 and 506 (2) r/w 34 IPC in Cr.No.203/2011 on 18.6.2011 against the petitioner and 10 others including the members of Mahila Mandali. In turn the respondent filed a criminal case against the petitioner on 2.7.2011 for the offence U/s.366 and 506 (2) r/w34 IPC vide

Cr.No.222/2011 against the petitioner and his family members including Pastor which is evident under Ex.B3. In turn the father of petitioner filed a criminal case against the father of respondent for the offence u/s 323 IPC and 3 (1) (x) of SC & ST Act, the same was registered as S.C.No.29/2011 and ended with acquittal on 7.10.2015.

13. The brief history of case is that the petitioner and respondent are fell in love in the year 2008. As per version of the petitioner, thereafter they get married without consent of elders on 4.5.2011 for the office of Akula Kiran Kumar who belongs to Congress

Party and thereafter they approached Pastor K.P.Das and performed their marriage as per Christian rites and obtained marriage certificate from him and it is marked as Ex.A4. Meanwhile the father of respondent given a report to Patamata P.S. that her daughter was missing on 4.5.2011 and that they went to Police station and that the father of respondent taken her daughter along with him from Patamata

P.S. by giving an undertaking that he will perform grand reception in their locality after few days and agreed that they will allow the petitioner to meet with the respondent in week days as he is having unmarried daughters who are elders to the respondent. Hence, he filed the present petition for seeking restitution of conjugal rights against the respondent as the father of respondent not sent her to lead marital life with him.

14. Even as per version of the petitioner after marriage they lived some time as wife and husband in Ajith Singh Nagar, 6

Vijayawada. To prove his contention, he himself examined as P.W.1.

He admitted in the cross-examination that he got acquaintance with the respondent when he visited her brother-in-law house who is his friend and she was not a major by the time of loving her. He further admitted that he has not mentioned in his chief affidavit that they decided to marry and informed the same to their parents respectively.

As per his version, the parents of the respondent tried to beat him and warned him to do away him after disclosing marriage proposal to parents of respondent. But he did not choose to give any report against the said incident. He further admitted that he filed a petition alleging the respondent parents high handedly and wrongly confined her and that the respondent made appearance before Hon'ble High

Court in the said petition and filed her counter affidavit and the said

Writ petition was dismissed on 13.7.2011. He further admitted that one Budda Nagalaxmi, some others and he went to parents house of the respondent during pendency of W.P. and Nagalakshmi pleaded ignorance that she is a member of recognized Mahila Mandali. But admitted that she was a member of Mahila Mandali.

15. P.W.1 further admitted that a crime registered against him and 10 others inturn his father presented a report. He pleaded ignorance that the respondent mentioned in her counter that on 4.5.2011, she obtained permission from the college principal when the respondent is in class room representing that her mother was died and he was taken her on a motor bike. He denied a suggestion that he took the respondent on his motor cycle straight away to the Akula

Kiran Kumar office, Congress Party Corporator. He denied that there was more than 40 members who threatened respondent and that he made attempt to tie tali around her neck and he further denied that he took her to A.S.Nagar from the office of A. Kiran Kumar subsequently.

He admitted that the marriage certificate was obtained by him in 7 church and it was given by pastor and it is situated at A.S.Nagar,

Vijayawada. He admitted that he is not a Christian so also the respondent. As per his version, her friends talked to the pastor in the morning on the date of marriage and briefed him about proposed marriage. He pleaded ignorance about on what time they went to church. As per his version, one Dinesh and Sandeep talked with the pastor i.e. P.W.2.

16. P.W.1 further admitted that they played drums in the church. He further admitted that the marriage certificate does not bear the time and place of marriage. He further admitted that as per Ex.A4 the age of respondent is mentioned as 18 years. He further admitted that by seeing the marriage certificate, the surname and residential address of the witnesses to the marriage was not mentioned. So also complete name of the 2nd petitioner. He further admitted that it is not possible to identify the attesters by seeing Ex.A4 except known persons. He denied a suggestion that he obtained forged marriage certificate by paying Rs.300/- and thereafter fabricated. As per his version, the respondent herself given a letter to the pastor for the proposed marriage. He further admitted that the served copy under

Ex.A5 does not bear the attestation of verification statement in the counter affidavit of Ex.A5. P.W.1 further admitted that the respondent father had given a report on 4.5.2011 disclosing his daughter was taken away from the college by some unknown persons and denied other suggestions.

17. To rebut the evidence of petitioner, the respondent herself examined as R.W.1. She admitted in the cross-examination that there is no marriage taken place between her and petitioner and denied a suggestion that the petitioner tied Mangalasutram in her neck in the presence of corporator. She further added that at the time the corporator was not present. She denied a suggestion that she has 8 given consent before pastor K.P.Das by giving affidavit by declaring them as majors. She further denied that she had given a statement

before Patamata P.S. herself and petitioner got married. In turn

seeking protection from the Commissioner of Police, Vijayawada from her parents. She denied a suggestion that she herself and the petitioner taken a photograph along with constable at Patamata P.S.

Even though the same was shown to the court as there is no supporting negative it was not marked. But the respondent volunteers that photo was taken by the petitioner with his cell phone and the same is marked as Ex.A6 marked subject to objection. She further admitted that she went to her parents house from Patamata P.S. and denied other suggestions.

18.The learned counsel for the petitioner given a suggestion to the respondent that the mother of petitioner not tied

Tali on her neck and she went to appear for departmental examinations. In view of the evidence on record the crux of the matter is that whether the respondent is legally wedded wife of the petitioner and their marriage was performed in accordance with law. As per version of the petitioner he tied Tali and exchanged garlands in the congress office of Akula kiran Kumar in the presence of his friends.

Thereafter he taken the respondent to a church belongs to K.P.Das and got married her as per Christianity and obtained certificate to that effect. Whether he proved the 1st stage of marriage i.e. petitioner and respondent exchanged garlands in the office of Akula Kiran Kumar and whether petitioner tied Tali in the neck of respondent has to be decided with the evidence on record.

19.As per version of the respondent the petitioner taken her from the college on 4.5.2011 on his bike by informing in the college that her mother was died and taken her to the office of Akula Kiran Kumar and threatened in his office that he will 9 pour acid on the face of her elder sister and under that cohersion he tried to tie Tali on her neck even though she was objected the same.

Again he had taken her to the church and paid Rs.3000/- to the pastor and obtained a certificate without any marriage.

20.To prove the marriage between the petitioner and respondent, the petitioner examined Pw2 namely Dinesh. As per his evidence on 4.5.2011 the respondent came to the house of the petitioner and they were taken them to the church of K.Prabu Das and in their presence the marriage was performed by the pastor. As per version of the petitioner and respondent, the petitioner taken her to the office of Akula Kiran Kumar under the guise that her mother was died on that day and she came along with him by believing his words as he is friend of her brother in law. Pw1 admitted in the cross- examination that he got acquaintance with the respondent as he was friend of brother in law and he pleaded ignorance that the respondent filed counter in W.P No.15461/11 that the petitioner went to her college and taken away on his motor cycle by informing to the college authorities that her mother was died.

21.There is no dispute that the petitioner filed

Hebious Carpus petition against the father of the respondent and state to produce the respondent before the Hon'be High Court and that the father of the respondent produced her before Hon'be High Court and she represented before court that she was major and residing along with her parents on her own accord and they are not detained her illegally and that the said petition was dismissed on 30.7.2011, which is evident under Ex.B2. On the other hand, the petitioner marked

Ex.A5 on his behalf that it is a served copy to him where the State filed counter in Habious Carpus petition. Per contra he admitted under

Ex.A5 there is no signature of the attester on the verification statement and also each page of Ex.A5. On perusal of the same it 10 found that the attester name was not mentioned and the counter affidavit was not signed by the attester making signature of the deponent of the said counter affidavit. Admittedly the name of the deponent was also not mentioned clearly under Ex.A5. As per Ex.A5 the father of the respondent had given report about missing of his daughter on 4.5.2011 on the same page in Para 3 it was again mentioned that on 1.5.2011 the father of the respondent dropped her at the college gate at about 12:30 P.M and he went to college to bring his daughter back to home, but he did not find her. On enquiry he came to know that one unknown girl came to college and informed the

principal that the aunty of the alleged detenue i.e. mother of the

respondent died and requested to send the alleged detenue. But as per version of the petitioner and respondent, the petitioner had taken away the respondent from the college on 4.5.2011 itself. Therefore as there is no any authentication in Ex.A5 apart from that it is not a certified copy. On the other hand, the petitioner not examined any of police who investigated their case prima-facie when the father of the respondent had given a report about missing of daughter and it is registered as crime no.219/11 on the head of woman missing. Even though he is having knowledge about investigating officer, he was not examined to prove the contents of counter affidavit filed by the said investigating officer in W.P.NO.15461/11 to show the respondent agreed before police that the petitioner and she got married that they were fell in love since 2008 and she was voluntarily accompanied the petitioner from the college on 3.5.2011 and got married at Congress party office, Kedareswara Peta. The counter averments itself shows that there was variation of date and the same was not supporting the version of the petitioner that he was taken away the respondent from the college on 4.5.2011.

11

22. Apart from that the petitioner not marked in 161 Cr.P.C statement of the respondent through her which were given before police or alleged undertaking given by the father of the respondent to show that he and respondent got married and in strengthen of report given by the father of the respondent, they were appeared before police and informed their marriage to them and that in the intervention of elders, the father of the respondent had given undertaking by stating that he will celebrate the reception of both persons in a grand manner subsequently and taken away his daughter along with him on 4.5.2011 itself. The respondent examined her father as RW2.

23. On perusal of evidence of RW2, on 4.5.2011 the petitioner taken away his daughter from the college representing that his wife died and taken her to the office of Akula Kiran Kumar who is congress party leader, Vijayawada and threatened his daughter with dire consequences. He admitted in the cross-examination that he had given report to the police about missing of his daughter and the same was registered as FIR. He further admitted that at that time his daughter is a major by the time of alleged abduction. He further admitted that the names of the persons who are taken away his daughter from the college were not traced in the police investigation. He denied a suggestion that on friend of his daughter taken away her from the college and that he was not disclosing her name. he further admitted that there is a distance 7 or 8 Kms., between the college of his daughter to the house of Akula Kiran Kumar. He denied a suggestion that to reach the house of Akula Kiran Kumar it has to be passing on through his house and shop. But the specific contention of the petitioner is that the marriage was held in the office of Akula Kiran

Kumar, but not in the house of Akula Kiran Kumar. There is no evidence on record to show the house and office of Akula Kiran Kumar is one and the same.

12

24. Rw2 further admitted that the missing case was against the respondent was closed by the police after recording their statements.

He admitted that he has not filed any counter in Habious Corpus petition, but he produced his daughter before Hon'be High Court. He pleaded ignorance about the counter filed by the State in W.P. He pleaded ignorance that his daughter handed over her entire educational certificates to the petitioner at the time of marriage and he identified the hall ticket of KL University, Photo of his daughter on

Intermediate marks list, having photo of the respondent the same is marked as Ex.A8 to A10.

25. RW2 denied a suggestion that when the petitioner given a report to C.P, Vijayawada, he produced the certificate to show his daughter taking treatment at Vijaya Hospital, Chennai and denied other suggestions. Admittedly the petitioner not filed statements recorded by the I.O in the missing case to come to a conclusion that the respondent stated before police that she got married the petitioner on her own accord and there is no any cohersion. Apart from that he failed to file the certified copy of counter affidavit filed by the State in

Habious Corpus petition before this court and also failed to examine the person who signed the counter affidavit under Ex.A5.

26.Admittedly the same was not attested by any of the person. Therefore it is not possible to believe the version of the petitioner that the respondent agreed before police that she got married the petitioner with her consent without any coercion. On the other hand, the petitioner failed to prove that he got married the respondent in the office of Akula Kiran Kumar. But as per version of the respondent, the petitioner taken her to the office of Akula Kiran

Kumar and there were more than 40 persons were present and threatened her with dire consequences and under such circumstances she is not able to protect him and that he exchanged the garlands.

13

Through RW1 Ex.A6 marked. As per her version the petitioner had taken photo with his cell phone. But as per version of the counsel for the petitioner the police constable was present at the time of exchanging garlands and taken a photo along with constable also by them. Admittedly no such constable was present under Ex.A6. He further admitted that the same was taken with cell phone. On perusal of the same there is no yellow thread on the neck of the respondent except exchange of garlands.

27. On the other hand, as per version of pw2 the respondent came to the house of the petitioner from college on 4.5.2011.

Thereafter they were taken them to church of K.P.Das and performed their marriage at church as per Christianity. But he admitted that he was not mentioned the place and time when the marriage was performed between the petitioner and respondent and he was not signed as a witness or attester in the marriage certificate. The marriage certificate is marked as Ex.A4. As per version of the petitioner there is no full name of Surname of attesters who signed as witnesses in marriage certificate and also he mentioned the age of respondent as 18 yeas as on the date of their marriage.

28. Admittedly the petitioner not examined K.P.Das to show the petitioner and respondent given their undertakings by declaring them as majors before him and that in the presence of witnesses the said

K.P.Das performed the marriage of petitioner and respondent as per

Christianity. On perusal of record it shows that Kamalakar and one

Venka signed as witnesses of the marriage certificate but not Pw2. On the other hand, the version of Pw2 is not supporting the version of

Pw1 about manner of marriage and reaching of the respondent from the college to house of petitioner or office of Akula Kiran Kumar. Even the suggestion given that this court already discussed that there is no evidence on record to show office of Akula Kiran Kumar and house is 14 one and the same and it can be reached only by passing through the house of the respondent and shop of her father and there is possibility of raising cries of her. On the other hand, there is no denial from the side of petitioner that he informed to the college authorities by stating that he brought the respondent from the college under the guise that her mother died. The same was not denied either in the cross- examination of RW1 or RW2. On the other hand, he failed to produce the undertaking alleged to be given by the respondent father before police.

29. In view of the evidence on record in ancient days exchange of garlands is one of the forms of marriage called as

Gandharva Vivaham. Admittedly the respondent is Yadava Community and the petitioner is the Christian. Per contra pw1 admitted in the cross-examination that he was not a Christian. On the other hand, his father claimed as Christian in criminal case filed by him against the father of the respondent on the allegation that father of the respondent abused them in the name of caste and the same was registered as FIR in crime no.202/11 at Suryaraopet, P.S under SC and ST Atrocities Prevention Act. The same was ended with acquittal on 7.10.2015. The said copy is marked as Ex.B4. On perusal of judgment Ex.B4, it shows that he claimed as Christian and his father also Christian and got married Pw2 in a church. On that contention the concerned court observed that the petitioner is a Christian and his father is also a Christian whereas the petitioner now claiming as Hindu by religion as Mala. Admittedly the various forms of marriage was recognized only in Hindu Religion in ancient times. Whether the custom is in existence still has to be taken in to consideration and to come to a conclusion that exchange of garlands itself is sufficient to come to a conclusion that they are wife and husband.

15

30. As per Sec.3 of Hindu Marriage Act, 1955 the custom must be ancient, certain and reasonable. It is for the petitioner to prove that such custom is ancient, certain and reasonable. As per decision reported in Dr.Surajmani Stella Kujur V. Durga Charan

Hansdah reported in AIR 2001 SC 938. Where their lordship held that the expression of custom and usage signified any rule, which for long time has been observed continuously and uniformly. They obtain the force of law among the Hindus.

31. On the other hand, it must be proved by the petitioner.

Admittedly the petitioner not claiming their marriage on the ground that there were exchange of garlands and thier marriage was concluded by exchange of garlands. On the other hand, he is claiming that he tied tali on the neck of respondent in the office of Akula Kiran

Kumar. To prove the same, he marked Ex.A6 through R.W.1 that they have taken photos after exchange of garlands and tying talik in the neck of respondent. Admittedly there is no yellow thread on the neck of respondent except exchange of garland by them. On the other hand, the petitioner is not a Hindu and he was a converted Christian and the same was observed by the Special Court of S.C. & ST

Atrocities Act which is evident under Ex.B4. In the above circumstances, the exchange of garlands i.e. form of Gandharva

Vivaham is only applicable to Hindu. Even then it is not inforce after came into existence of Hindu Marriage Act, 1955 and that the custom was not ancient and it is lost his importance in change of timings.

32. On the other hand, the petitioner claiming that he got married the respondent at a church in the presence of K.P.Das.

Admittedly the petitioner not examined the said Pastor on his behalf to show the respondent has given consent for marriage with him and also they had given declarations before the Pastor to show they both were consent and they are majors as on the date of marriage. Apart from 16 that he has also not examined any witnesses on his behalf or any one of the attester of the marriage certificate to prove their marriage which was registered as per the Christianity.

33. Admittedly the petitioner filed this petition U/s.22 of

Special Marriage Act. As per Sec.22 of Special Marriage Act any form of marriage celebrated before or after commencement of the Act may be registered under 6 chapter by a marriage officer in the territories to which the Act existence as per the conditions if the conditions fulfilled which were mentioned U/s.15 (a) to (f) of the Act. To that effect he has to issue marriage certificate U/s.13 to declare the marriage of both parties. Admittedly the petitioner not produced marriage certificate issued by the Marriage Officer under Speciall Marriage

before this court. On the other hand, he produced marriage certificate

issued by one Pastor who performed their marriage as per Christianity.

The marriage between Christians were governed by Divorce Act, 1869.

But in Divorce Act no where mentioned procedure of marriage performed under Christianity. On the other hand, declaration of the nullity of marriage was mentioned U/s.18 But no grounds were mentioned on what grounds the marriage can be declared as nullity.

On the other hand, it shows that the grounds which were mentioned under Hindu Marriage Act can be treated as grounds to declare the marriage between petitioner and respondent as nullity under Divorce

Act, 1869. But Admittedly the petitioner not proved the marriage by examining any independent witness on his behalf to show their marriage was performed in the presence of attesters by one K.P.Das

Pastor and issued the certificate, the same was signed by the respondent. Admittedly respondent denied her signature on marriage certificate.

34. It is for the petitioner to send the document to expert to prove the signature of the respondent on Ex.A4. But petitioner not 17 taken any steps to prove the same. On the other hand, he failed to prove the marriage between him and respondent by examining P.W.2 and the evidence of P.W.2 is not supporting the evidence of P.W.1 in respect of manner of marriage between petitioner and respondent.

Even if the court believes that the respondent went along with the petitioner on his motor cycle she clearly stated that petitioner taken away her from the college by saying that her mother was died and he was a friend of her brother-in-law, she believed his version and went along with him. Even if it shows that she was consented party at the initial stage later she protested the same. It is for the petitioner to prove that he got married the respondent in the presence of his friend by tying tali and she was consented the same. On the other hand, he has to prove that their marriage was registered as per Christianity

before Pastor. On the grounds the petitioner failed to prove the same

as discussed above.

35. In the above circumstances, this court clearly came to a conclusion that the petitioner failed to prove the marriage between petitioner and respondent by leading cogent evidence and by examining independent witness. Once the petitioner failed to prove that respondent is legally wedded wife to him, he is not entitled for restitution of conjugal rights against the respondent U/s.22 of Special

Marriage Act. In view of my foregoing discussion, this court declined to allow the petition to grant restitution of conjugal rights of the petitioner against the respondent.

18

36. In the result, the petition is dismissed.

Dictated to Stenographer, Grade-I, transcribed by him,

corrected and pronounced by me in open court, this the 19th day of February, 2016.

JUDGE, FAMILY COURT,

VIJAYAWADA.

APPENDIX OF EVIDENCE

WITNESS EXAMINED FOR

PETITIONER: RESPONDENT

P.W.1: P.Arun Kumar RW1: A.Naga Divya Priyanka P.W.2: M.Dinesh Kumar R.W.2:A.Bala Raju

EXHIBITS MARKED FOR

PETITIONER :

Ex.A1: Copy of FIR in Cr.No.203/2011 Ex.A2: Office copy of register notice Ex.A3: Postal ackd. Ex.A4: Marriage certificate Ex.A5: Counter affidavit in WP 15461/2015 Ex.A6: Photo Ex.A7: FIR copy Ex.A8: Intermediate marks list Ex.A9: Photo Ex.A10: Hall ticket of K.L.U. Examinations

RESPONDENT : Ex.B1: Report of Human Rights Commission Ex.B2: Order in WP 15461/2011 Ex.B3: FIR in cr.No.222/2011 Ex.B4: Judgment in SC 29/2012

Judge, F.C-cum-IV

ADJ,VJA.

19

IN THE FAMILY COURT- CUM-IV ADDL.DISTRICT & SESSIONS JUDGE’S

COURT AT VIJAYAWADA

Present: Smt V.B.Nirmala Geethamba, B.A., LL.M.,

Judge, Family Court-cum-IV Addl. District and

Sessions Judge, Vijayawada.

Friday, 19th day of February, 2016.

O.P.No.743/2011

Between:-

Pagolu Arun Kumar, S/o Kumar, Hindu, 25

years,D.No.17-6-30/A,Pezzonipet, .. Petitioner

Vijayawada.

And

Pagolu Naga Priyanka, W/o Arun Kumar, D/o Ambati Bala Raju, Hindu, 19 years, D.no.201, RamapriyaEnclave,Seetharampuram, …Respondent. Vijayawada

This petition filed by the petitioner U/s. 22 of Special Marriage Act, 1954 for restitution of conjugal rights.

Petition Presented on: 26.9.2011

This petition is coming on 11.1.2016 for hearing before me in the presence of Sri P.y.Kiran Kumar, Advocate, for the petitioner and of Sri Narra Nageswara Rao, Advocate for the respondent; and upon perusing the petition, counter, and other material on record, having stood over till this day for consideration, this Court doth order and:

DECREE

i)that the petition be and the same is hereby dismissed.

GIVEN UNDER MY HAND AND THE SEAL OF THIS COURT THIS

THE 19th day of February, 2016.

JUDGE, FAMILY COURT,

VIJAYAWADA.

IN THE FAMILY COURT- CUM-IV ADDL.DISTRICT & SESSIONS

JUDGE’S COURT AT VIJAYAWADA

Present: Smt V.B.Nirmala Geethamba, B.A., LL.M.,

Judge, Family Court-cum-IV Addl. District and

Sessions Judge, Vijayawada.

Friday, 19th day of February, 2016.

O.P.No.743/2011

Between:-

Pagolu Arun Kumar, S/o Kumar, Hindu, 25

years,D.No.17-6-30/A,Pezzonipet, .. Petitioner

Vijayawada.

And

Pagolu Naga Priyanka, W/o Arun Kumar, D/o Ambati Bala Raju, Hindu, 19 years, D.no.201, RamapriyaEnclave,Seetharampuram, …Respondent. Vijayawada

This petition is coming on 11.1.2016 for hearing before me in the presence of Sri P.y.Kiran Kumar, Advocate, for the petitioner and of Sri Narra Nageswara Rao, Advocate for the respondent; and upon perusing the petition, counter, and other material on record, having stood over till this day for consideration, this Court made the following:

ORDER

This petition filed by the petitioner U/s. 22 of Special

Marriage Act, 1954 for restitution of conjugal rights.

2. The petitioner’s case in precise is that the marriage of petitioner and respondent was performed on 4.5.2011 at Vijayawada in the presence of friends, elders without willing of both side parents and it was registered by K.Prabhudas, A.S.Nagar, Vijayawada. The petitioner and respondent fell in love in 2008 and both are decided marry and informed the same to their parents, who refused for the same. Then they got married without consent of parents of both sides. They lived happily for four days. Later the parents of respondent filed a case against the petitioner before Patamata P.S. as the respondent missed. Police brought them and gave counseling to them on 16.6.2011 and that the respondent went to her parents house as 2 the father of respondent given undertaking to give grand reception to their marriage after few days.

3. After the father of respondent not send the respondent to lead marital life with him. On that he filed W.P.No.15461/2011 before the Hon'ble High Court. The respondent herself appeared before High

Court and admitted marriage and she presently staying with her parents and it was disposed. Later also the father of respondent not send the respondent to lead marital life with him. On 28.8.2011 he got issued legal notice to the respondent, the same was received by her and kept quiet. Hence, the petition.

4. The respondent filed counter denying material allegations of the petition and stated that she was studying 1st Year B Tech in Vijaya

Institute, Enikepadu, Vijayawada and on 4.5.2011 the petitioner and his relative came to college and told that her mother was expired and took her to outside from the college on his motor bike to the office of

Akula Kiran Kumar, Kedareswarapet, Vijayawada and he tried to tie tali on her neck and she obstructed for the same. The petitioner and others beat her and the petitioner forcibly tied tali in her neck and taken away her to the house of K.Y.Das, Pastor and given Rs.3,000/- and obtained marriage certificate. Later taken her to a photo studio and obtained photos of respondent and petitioner. When police called, the petitioner and his mother and brothers demanded her by threatening with her dire consequences to agree for the marriage.

Thus, the marriage is not a valid marriage and prayed to dismiss the petition.

5. During the course of trial, the petitioner himself examined as PW.1. One M.Dinesh Kumar examined as P.W.2. Exs.A1 to A10 marked. To rebut the evidence of the Petitioner, the respondent 3 herself examined as R.W.1. Her father examined as R.W.2. Ex.B1 to

B4 marked on her behalf.

6.Both the counsel present and heard.

7.Upon considering the rival contentions, the point for consideration is: Whether the petitioner is entitled for restitution of conjugal rights as prayed by him?

8.POINT:

The specific contention of the petitioner is that he and respondent fell in love and got married on 4.5.2011 as per Social

Marriage before Marriage Registrar, AS Nagar, Vijayawada and the same was registered in the presence of friends without willing of both side parents. Thereafter they resided at A.S.Nagar, Vijayawada. In the meanwhile the parents of respondent foisted a false case against him in Patamata P.S. in Cr.No.219/2011. After recording their statements, his father given undertaking that he will arrange grand reception after few days and taken the respondent along with them.

Thereafter they were not allow to meet his wife even though he made several efforts. He further argued that then he approached

Commissioner of Police for justice, thereafter he filed

W.P.no.15461/2011 to produce his wife. When the petitioner went to respondent’s house to meet his wife, the 2nd sister of the respondent filed a false case against him and others in Cr.No.203/2011 and the same was referred as mistake of fact vide order No.1736/2011.

Thereafter he got issued legal notice on 28.8.2011, and prayed to order for restitution of conjugal rights in his favour.

9. The learned counsel for the respondent argued that the petitioner taken away the respondent who is studying B Tech course at relevant point of time from the college under the guise that his mother was died on 4.5.2011 and that taken her to one Corporator office namely Akula Kiran Kumar under a threat, he tried to tie 4

Mangalasutram on her neck when she was protested he threatened that he will pour acid on the face of her sister and her parents. Due to fear he forcibly tied Tali on her neck and also taken her to church of

K.P.Das who is a pastor and given Rs.3,000/- to the said Pastor and taken false certificate and the same was not signed by the respondent.

He further argued that the petitioner not examined the witnesses who were present at the time of registration of marriage before K.P.Das and also not examined the said K.P.Das to prove the marriage between the petitioner and respondent.

10. The respondent counsel further argued that there is no marriage between the petitioner and respondent and the same was proved by petitioner and respondent and mere exchange of garland itself is not form of marriage and that they are not became wife and husband. He further argued that under coercion the petitioner obtained consent of the respondent and she was not consented party, thereafter several cases were filed against each other. In the above circumstances the petitioner not entitled for restitution of conjugal rights as there is no marriage existed between petitioner and respondent in the eye of law and prayed to dismiss the petition.

11. To prove their contentions, the petitioner himself examined as P.W.1. Exs.A1 to A10 marked. To rebut the evidence of petitioner, the respondent herself examined as R.W.1. Exs.B1 to B4 marked.

12. Admitted facts:

The petitioner belongs to Christian community and the respondent belongs to Yadava Community and Hindu by religion.

There is no dispute that there are several cases pending between parents of respondent and petitioner. The petitioner filed Hebious

Corpus petition vide WP No.15461/2011 before the Hon'ble High Court against the State and father of respondent and it is marked as Ex.B2.

5

It is also an admitted fact that the elder sister of the respondent filed criminal case against the petitioner for the offence U/s.448, 323 and 506 (2) r/w 34 IPC in Cr.No.203/2011 on 18.6.2011 against the petitioner and 10 others including the members of Mahila Mandali. In turn the respondent filed a criminal case against the petitioner on 2.7.2011 for the offence U/s.366 and 506 (2) r/w34 IPC vide

Cr.No.222/2011 against the petitioner and his family members including Pastor which is evident under Ex.B3. In turn the father of petitioner filed a criminal case against the father of respondent for the offence u/s 323 IPC and 3 (1) (x) of SC & ST Act, the same was registered as S.C.No.29/2011 and ended with acquittal on 7.10.2015.

13. The brief history of case is that the petitioner and respondent are fell in love in the year 2008. As per version of the petitioner, thereafter they get married without consent of elders on 4.5.2011 for the office of Akula Kiran Kumar who belongs to Congress

Party and thereafter they approached Pastor K.P.Das and performed their marriage as per Christian rites and obtained marriage certificate from him and it is marked as Ex.A4. Meanwhile the father of respondent given a report to Patamata P.S. that her daughter was missing on 4.5.2011 and that they went to Police station and that the father of respondent taken her daughter along with him from Patamata

P.S. by giving an undertaking that he will perform grand reception in their locality after few days and agreed that they will allow the petitioner to meet with the respondent in week days as he is having unmarried daughters who are elders to the respondent. Hence, he filed the present petition for seeking restitution of conjugal rights against the respondent as the father of respondent not sent her to lead marital life with him.

14. Even as per version of the petitioner after marriage they lived some time as wife and husband in Ajith Singh Nagar, 6

Vijayawada. To prove his contention, he himself examined as P.W.1.

He admitted in the cross-examination that he got acquaintance with the respondent when he visited her brother-in-law house who is his friend and she was not a major by the time of loving her. He further admitted that he has not mentioned in his chief affidavit that they decided to marry and informed the same to their parents respectively.

As per his version, the parents of the respondent tried to beat him and warned him to do away him after disclosing marriage proposal to parents of respondent. But he did not choose to give any report against the said incident. He further admitted that he filed a petition alleging the respondent parents high handedly and wrongly confined her and that the respondent made appearance before Hon'ble High

Court in the said petition and filed her counter affidavit and the said

Writ petition was dismissed on 13.7.2011. He further admitted that one Budda Nagalaxmi, some others and he went to parents house of the respondent during pendency of W.P. and Nagalakshmi pleaded ignorance that she is a member of recognized Mahila Mandali. But admitted that she was a member of Mahila Mandali.

15. P.W.1 further admitted that a crime registered against him and 10 others inturn his father presented a report. He pleaded ignorance that the respondent mentioned in her counter that on 4.5.2011, she obtained permission from the college principal when the respondent is in class room representing that her mother was died and he was taken her on a motor bike. He denied a suggestion that he took the respondent on his motor cycle straight away to the Akula

Kiran Kumar office, Congress Party Corporator. He denied that there was more than 40 members who threatened respondent and that he made attempt to tie tali around her neck and he further denied that he took her to A.S.Nagar from the office of A. Kiran Kumar subsequently.

He admitted that the marriage certificate was obtained by him in 7 church and it was given by pastor and it is situated at A.S.Nagar,

Vijayawada. He admitted that he is not a Christian so also the respondent. As per his version, her friends talked to the pastor in the morning on the date of marriage and briefed him about proposed marriage. He pleaded ignorance about on what time they went to church. As per his version, one Dinesh and Sandeep talked with the pastor i.e. P.W.2.

16. P.W.1 further admitted that they played drums in the church. He further admitted that the marriage certificate does not bear the time and place of marriage. He further admitted that as per Ex.A4 the age of respondent is mentioned as 18 years. He further admitted that by seeing the marriage certificate, the surname and residential address of the witnesses to the marriage was not mentioned. So also complete name of the 2nd petitioner. He further admitted that it is not possible to identify the attesters by seeing Ex.A4 except known persons. He denied a suggestion that he obtained forged marriage certificate by paying Rs.300/- and thereafter fabricated. As per his version, the respondent herself given a letter to the pastor for the proposed marriage. He further admitted that the served copy under

Ex.A5 does not bear the attestation of verification statement in the counter affidavit of Ex.A5. P.W.1 further admitted that the respondent father had given a report on 4.5.2011 disclosing his daughter was taken away from the college by some unknown persons and denied other suggestions.

17. To rebut the evidence of petitioner, the respondent herself examined as R.W.1. She admitted in the cross-examination that there is no marriage taken place between her and petitioner and denied a suggestion that the petitioner tied Mangalasutram in her neck in the presence of corporator. She further added that at the time the corporator was not present. She denied a suggestion that she has 8 given consent before pastor K.P.Das by giving affidavit by declaring them as majors. She further denied that she had given a statement

before Patamata P.S. herself and petitioner got married. In turn

seeking protection from the Commissioner of Police, Vijayawada from her parents. She denied a suggestion that she herself and the petitioner taken a photograph along with constable at Patamata P.S.

Even though the same was shown to the court as there is no supporting negative it was not marked. But the respondent volunteers that photo was taken by the petitioner with his cell phone and the same is marked as Ex.A6 marked subject to objection. She further admitted that she went to her parents house from Patamata P.S. and denied other suggestions.

18.The learned counsel for the petitioner given a suggestion to the respondent that the mother of petitioner not tied

Tali on her neck and she went to appear for departmental examinations. In view of the evidence on record the crux of the matter is that whether the respondent is legally wedded wife of the petitioner and their marriage was performed in accordance with law. As per version of the petitioner he tied Tali and exchanged garlands in the congress office of Akula kiran Kumar in the presence of his friends.

Thereafter he taken the respondent to a church belongs to K.P.Das and got married her as per Christianity and obtained certificate to that effect. Whether he proved the 1st stage of marriage i.e. petitioner and respondent exchanged garlands in the office of Akula Kiran Kumar and whether petitioner tied Tali in the neck of respondent has to be decided with the evidence on record.

19.As per version of the respondent the petitioner taken her from the college on 4.5.2011 on his bike by informing in the college that her mother was died and taken her to the office of Akula Kiran Kumar and threatened in his office that he will 9 pour acid on the face of her elder sister and under that cohersion he tried to tie Tali on her neck even though she was objected the same.

Again he had taken her to the church and paid Rs.3000/- to the pastor and obtained a certificate without any marriage.

20.To prove the marriage between the petitioner and respondent, the petitioner examined Pw2 namely Dinesh. As per his evidence on 4.5.2011 the respondent came to the house of the petitioner and they were taken them to the church of K.Prabu Das and in their presence the marriage was performed by the pastor. As per version of the petitioner and respondent, the petitioner taken her to the office of Akula Kiran Kumar under the guise that her mother was died on that day and she came along with him by believing his words as he is friend of her brother in law. Pw1 admitted in the cross- examination that he got acquaintance with the respondent as he was friend of brother in law and he pleaded ignorance that the respondent filed counter in W.P No.15461/11 that the petitioner went to her college and taken away on his motor cycle by informing to the college authorities that her mother was died.

21.There is no dispute that the petitioner filed

Hebious Carpus petition against the father of the respondent and state to produce the respondent before the Hon'be High Court and that the father of the respondent produced her before Hon'be High Court and she represented before court that she was major and residing along with her parents on her own accord and they are not detained her illegally and that the said petition was dismissed on 30.7.2011, which is evident under Ex.B2. On the other hand, the petitioner marked

Ex.A5 on his behalf that it is a served copy to him where the State filed counter in Habious Carpus petition. Per contra he admitted under

Ex.A5 there is no signature of the attester on the verification statement and also each page of Ex.A5. On perusal of the same it 10 found that the attester name was not mentioned and the counter affidavit was not signed by the attester making signature of the deponent of the said counter affidavit. Admittedly the name of the deponent was also not mentioned clearly under Ex.A5. As per Ex.A5 the father of the respondent had given report about missing of his daughter on 4.5.2011 on the same page in Para 3 it was again mentioned that on 1.5.2011 the father of the respondent dropped her at the college gate at about 12:30 P.M and he went to college to bring his daughter back to home, but he did not find her. On enquiry he came to know that one unknown girl came to college and informed the

principal that the aunty of the alleged detenue i.e. mother of the

respondent died and requested to send the alleged detenue. But as per version of the petitioner and respondent, the petitioner had taken away the respondent from the college on 4.5.2011 itself. Therefore as there is no any authentication in Ex.A5 apart from that it is not a certified copy. On the other hand, the petitioner not examined any of police who investigated their case prima-facie when the father of the respondent had given a report about missing of daughter and it is registered as crime no.219/11 on the head of woman missing. Even though he is having knowledge about investigating officer, he was not examined to prove the contents of counter affidavit filed by the said investigating officer in W.P.NO.15461/11 to show the respondent agreed before police that the petitioner and she got married that they were fell in love since 2008 and she was voluntarily accompanied the petitioner from the college on 3.5.2011 and got married at Congress party office, Kedareswara Peta. The counter averments itself shows that there was variation of date and the same was not supporting the version of the petitioner that he was taken away the respondent from the college on 4.5.2011.

11

22. Apart from that the petitioner not marked in 161 Cr.P.C statement of the respondent through her which were given before police or alleged undertaking given by the father of the respondent to show that he and respondent got married and in strengthen of report given by the father of the respondent, they were appeared before police and informed their marriage to them and that in the intervention of elders, the father of the respondent had given undertaking by stating that he will celebrate the reception of both persons in a grand manner subsequently and taken away his daughter along with him on 4.5.2011 itself. The respondent examined her father as RW2.

23. On perusal of evidence of RW2, on 4.5.2011 the petitioner taken away his daughter from the college representing that his wife died and taken her to the office of Akula Kiran Kumar who is congress party leader, Vijayawada and threatened his daughter with dire consequences. He admitted in the cross-examination that he had given report to the police about missing of his daughter and the same was registered as FIR. He further admitted that at that time his daughter is a major by the time of alleged abduction. He further admitted that the names of the persons who are taken away his daughter from the college were not traced in the police investigation. He denied a suggestion that on friend of his daughter taken away her from the college and that he was not disclosing her name. he further admitted that there is a distance 7 or 8 Kms., between the college of his daughter to the house of Akula Kiran Kumar. He denied a suggestion that to reach the house of Akula Kiran Kumar it has to be passing on through his house and shop. But the specific contention of the petitioner is that the marriage was held in the office of Akula Kiran

Kumar, but not in the house of Akula Kiran Kumar. There is no evidence on record to show the house and office of Akula Kiran Kumar is one and the same.

12

24. Rw2 further admitted that the missing case was against the respondent was closed by the police after recording their statements.

He admitted that he has not filed any counter in Habious Corpus petition, but he produced his daughter before Hon'be High Court. He pleaded ignorance about the counter filed by the State in W.P. He pleaded ignorance that his daughter handed over her entire educational certificates to the petitioner at the time of marriage and he identified the hall ticket of KL University, Photo of his daughter on

Intermediate marks list, having photo of the respondent the same is marked as Ex.A8 to A10.

25. RW2 denied a suggestion that when the petitioner given a report to C.P, Vijayawada, he produced the certificate to show his daughter taking treatment at Vijaya Hospital, Chennai and denied other suggestions. Admittedly the petitioner not filed statements recorded by the I.O in the missing case to come to a conclusion that the respondent stated before police that she got married the petitioner on her own accord and there is no any cohersion. Apart from that he failed to file the certified copy of counter affidavit filed by the State in

Habious Corpus petition before this court and also failed to examine the person who signed the counter affidavit under Ex.A5.

26.Admittedly the same was not attested by any of the person. Therefore it is not possible to believe the version of the petitioner that the respondent agreed before police that she got married the petitioner with her consent without any coercion. On the other hand, the petitioner failed to prove that he got married the respondent in the office of Akula Kiran Kumar. But as per version of the respondent, the petitioner taken her to the office of Akula Kiran

Kumar and there were more than 40 persons were present and threatened her with dire consequences and under such circumstances she is not able to protect him and that he exchanged the garlands.

13

Through RW1 Ex.A6 marked. As per her version the petitioner had taken photo with his cell phone. But as per version of the counsel for the petitioner the police constable was present at the time of exchanging garlands and taken a photo along with constable also by them. Admittedly no such constable was present under Ex.A6. He further admitted that the same was taken with cell phone. On perusal of the same there is no yellow thread on the neck of the respondent except exchange of garlands.

27. On the other hand, as per version of pw2 the respondent came to the house of the petitioner from college on 4.5.2011.

Thereafter they were taken them to church of K.P.Das and performed their marriage at church as per Christianity. But he admitted that he was not mentioned the place and time when the marriage was performed between the petitioner and respondent and he was not signed as a witness or attester in the marriage certificate. The marriage certificate is marked as Ex.A4. As per version of the petitioner there is no full name of Surname of attesters who signed as witnesses in marriage certificate and also he mentioned the age of respondent as 18 yeas as on the date of their marriage.

28. Admittedly the petitioner not examined K.P.Das to show the petitioner and respondent given their undertakings by declaring them as majors before him and that in the presence of witnesses the said

K.P.Das performed the marriage of petitioner and respondent as per

Christianity. On perusal of record it shows that Kamalakar and one

Venka signed as witnesses of the marriage certificate but not Pw2. On the other hand, the version of Pw2 is not supporting the version of

Pw1 about manner of marriage and reaching of the respondent from the college to house of petitioner or office of Akula Kiran Kumar. Even the suggestion given that this court already discussed that there is no evidence on record to show office of Akula Kiran Kumar and house is 14 one and the same and it can be reached only by passing through the house of the respondent and shop of her father and there is possibility of raising cries of her. On the other hand, there is no denial from the side of petitioner that he informed to the college authorities by stating that he brought the respondent from the college under the guise that her mother died. The same was not denied either in the cross- examination of RW1 or RW2. On the other hand, he failed to produce the undertaking alleged to be given by the respondent father before police.

29. In view of the evidence on record in ancient days exchange of garlands is one of the forms of marriage called as

Gandharva Vivaham. Admittedly the respondent is Yadava Community and the petitioner is the Christian. Per contra pw1 admitted in the cross-examination that he was not a Christian. On the other hand, his father claimed as Christian in criminal case filed by him against the father of the respondent on the allegation that father of the respondent abused them in the name of caste and the same was registered as FIR in crime no.202/11 at Suryaraopet, P.S under SC and ST Atrocities Prevention Act. The same was ended with acquittal on 7.10.2015. The said copy is marked as Ex.B4. On perusal of judgment Ex.B4, it shows that he claimed as Christian and his father also Christian and got married Pw2 in a church. On that contention the concerned court observed that the petitioner is a Christian and his father is also a Christian whereas the petitioner now claiming as Hindu by religion as Mala. Admittedly the various forms of marriage was recognized only in Hindu Religion in ancient times. Whether the custom is in existence still has to be taken in to consideration and to come to a conclusion that exchange of garlands itself is sufficient to come to a conclusion that they are wife and husband.

15

30. As per Sec.3 of Hindu Marriage Act, 1955 the custom must be ancient, certain and reasonable. It is for the petitioner to prove that such custom is ancient, certain and reasonable. As per decision reported in Dr.Surajmani Stella Kujur V. Durga Charan

Hansdah reported in AIR 2001 SC 938. Where their lordship held that the expression of custom and usage signified any rule, which for long time has been observed continuously and uniformly. They obtain the force of law among the Hindus.

31. On the other hand, it must be proved by the petitioner.

Admittedly the petitioner not claiming their marriage on the ground that there were exchange of garlands and thier marriage was concluded by exchange of garlands. On the other hand, he is claiming that he tied tali on the neck of respondent in the office of Akula Kiran

Kumar. To prove the same, he marked Ex.A6 through R.W.1 that they have taken photos after exchange of garlands and tying talik in the neck of respondent. Admittedly there is no yellow thread on the neck of respondent except exchange of garland by them. On the other hand, the petitioner is not a Hindu and he was a converted Christian and the same was observed by the Special Court of S.C. & ST

Atrocities Act which is evident under Ex.B4. In the above circumstances, the exchange of garlands i.e. form of Gandharva

Vivaham is only applicable to Hindu. Even then it is not inforce after came into existence of Hindu Marriage Act, 1955 and that the custom was not ancient and it is lost his importance in change of timings.

32. On the other hand, the petitioner claiming that he got married the respondent at a church in the presence of K.P.Das.

Admittedly the petitioner not examined the said Pastor on his behalf to show the respondent has given consent for marriage with him and also they had given declarations before the Pastor to show they both were consent and they are majors as on the date of marriage. Apart from 16 that he has also not examined any witnesses on his behalf or any one of the attester of the marriage certificate to prove their marriage which was registered as per the Christianity.

33. Admittedly the petitioner filed this petition U/s.22 of

Special Marriage Act. As per Sec.22 of Special Marriage Act any form of marriage celebrated before or after commencement of the Act may be registered under 6 chapter by a marriage officer in the territories to which the Act existence as per the conditions if the conditions fulfilled which were mentioned U/s.15 (a) to (f) of the Act. To that effect he has to issue marriage certificate U/s.13 to declare the marriage of both parties. Admittedly the petitioner not produced marriage certificate issued by the Marriage Officer under Speciall Marriage

before this court. On the other hand, he produced marriage certificate

issued by one Pastor who performed their marriage as per Christianity.

The marriage between Christians were governed by Divorce Act, 1869.

But in Divorce Act no where mentioned procedure of marriage performed under Christianity. On the other hand, declaration of the nullity of marriage was mentioned U/s.18 But no grounds were mentioned on what grounds the marriage can be declared as nullity.

On the other hand, it shows that the grounds which were mentioned under Hindu Marriage Act can be treated as grounds to declare the marriage between petitioner and respondent as nullity under Divorce

Act, 1869. But Admittedly the petitioner not proved the marriage by examining any independent witness on his behalf to show their marriage was performed in the presence of attesters by one K.P.Das

Pastor and issued the certificate, the same was signed by the respondent. Admittedly respondent denied her signature on marriage certificate.

34. It is for the petitioner to send the document to expert to prove the signature of the respondent on Ex.A4. But petitioner not 17 taken any steps to prove the same. On the other hand, he failed to prove the marriage between him and respondent by examining P.W.2 and the evidence of P.W.2 is not supporting the evidence of P.W.1 in respect of manner of marriage between petitioner and respondent.

Even if the court believes that the respondent went along with the petitioner on his motor cycle she clearly stated that petitioner taken away her from the college by saying that her mother was died and he was a friend of her brother-in-law, she believed his version and went along with him. Even if it shows that she was consented party at the initial stage later she protested the same. It is for the petitioner to prove that he got married the respondent in the presence of his friend by tying tali and she was consented the same. On the other hand, he has to prove that their marriage was registered as per Christianity

before Pastor. On the grounds the petitioner failed to prove the same

as discussed above.

35. In the above circumstances, this court clearly came to a conclusion that the petitioner failed to prove the marriage between petitioner and respondent by leading cogent evidence and by examining independent witness. Once the petitioner failed to prove that respondent is legally wedded wife to him, he is not entitled for restitution of conjugal rights against the respondent U/s.22 of Special

Marriage Act. In view of my foregoing discussion, this court declined to allow the petition to grant restitution of conjugal rights of the petitioner against the respondent.

18

36. In the result, the petition is dismissed.

Dictated to Stenographer, Grade-I, transcribed by him,

corrected and pronounced by me in open court, this the 19th day of February, 2016.

JUDGE, FAMILY COURT,

VIJAYAWADA.

APPENDIX OF EVIDENCE

WITNESS EXAMINED FOR

PETITIONER: RESPONDENT

P.W.1: P.Arun Kumar RW1: A.Naga Divya Priyanka P.W.2: M.Dinesh Kumar R.W.2:A.Bala Raju

EXHIBITS MARKED FOR

PETITIONER :

Ex.A1: Copy of FIR in Cr.No.203/2011 Ex.A2: Office copy of register notice Ex.A3: Postal ackd. Ex.A4: Marriage certificate Ex.A5: Counter affidavit in WP 15461/2015 Ex.A6: Photo Ex.A7: FIR copy Ex.A8: Intermediate marks list Ex.A9: Photo Ex.A10: Hall ticket of K.L.U. Examinations

RESPONDENT : Ex.B1: Report of Human Rights Commission Ex.B2: Order in WP 15461/2011 Ex.B3: FIR in cr.No.222/2011 Ex.B4: Judgment in SC 29/2012

Judge, F.C-cum-IV

ADJ,VJA.

19

IN THE FAMILY COURT- CUM-IV ADDL.DISTRICT & SESSIONS JUDGE’S

COURT AT VIJAYAWADA

Present: Smt V.B.Nirmala Geethamba, B.A., LL.M.,

Judge, Family Court-cum-IV Addl. District and

Sessions Judge, Vijayawada.

Friday, 19th day of February, 2016.

O.P.No.743/2011

Between:-

Pagolu Arun Kumar, S/o Kumar, Hindu, 25

years,D.No.17-6-30/A,Pezzonipet, .. Petitioner

Vijayawada.

And

Pagolu Naga Priyanka, W/o Arun Kumar, D/o Ambati Bala Raju, Hindu, 19 years, D.no.201, RamapriyaEnclave,Seetharampuram, …Respondent. Vijayawada

This petition filed by the petitioner U/s. 22 of Special Marriage Act, 1954 for restitution of conjugal rights.

Petition Presented on: 26.9.2011

This petition is coming on 11.1.2016 for hearing before me in the presence of Sri P.y.Kiran Kumar, Advocate, for the petitioner and of Sri Narra Nageswara Rao, Advocate for the respondent; and upon perusing the petition, counter, and other material on record, having stood over till this day for consideration, this Court doth order and:

DECREE

i)that the petition be and the same is hereby dismissed.

GIVEN UNDER MY HAND AND THE SEAL OF THIS COURT THIS

THE 19th day of February, 2016.

JUDGE, FAMILY COURT,

VIJAYAWADA.

IN THE FAMILY COURT- CUM-IV ADDL.DISTRICT & SESSIONS

JUDGE’S COURT AT VIJAYAWADA

Present: Smt V.B.Nirmala Geethamba, B.A., LL.M.,

Judge, Family Court-cum-IV Addl. District and

Sessions Judge, Vijayawada.

Tuesday, 16th day of February, 2016.

O.P.No.323/2013

Between:-

Bandi Srinivasa Rao, S/o Prasad Rao, Christian, 33

years,Privateemployee,D.No.4-35-13/A, .. Petitioner

Balagamsettyvaristreet,Bhimanavaripet, Vijayawada -9

And

Bandi Bindu Bhargavi, W/o Srinivasa Rao, D/o Betapudi Mojes, Retired Teacher, Christian, 29 years, House wife, D.No.19-47, Chenchula colony, …Respondent. Kothapet, Gannavaram, Krishna Dt.

This petition is coming on 3.2.2016 for hearing before me in the presence of Sri Nutakki Udya Kumar, B.Neeraja, Advocates, for the petitioner and of Sri B.Srinivasa Reddy, Sri P.Ambedkar, Advocates for the respondent; and upon perusing the petition, counter, written arguments, and other material on record, having stood over till this day for consideration, this Court made the following:

ORDER

This petition filed by the petitioner U/s. 10 (1) (ix) and

(x) of Divorce Act for dissolution of the marriage inter-se the petitioner and respondent dated 16.12.2010 by passing a decree of divorce on the ground of cruelty and desertion.

2. The petitioner’s case in precise is that the marriage of petitioner and respondent was performed on 16.12.2010 at

Vijayawada as per Christian rites. Later the respondent never cooperated with the petitioner in leading life with him. The respondent used to go to her parents house frequently without informing him. On 5.5.2011 she consumed pills for abortion and that she was admitted in

American hospital, Vijayawada. On the same day, the parents of respondent came and took her to Gannavaram Hospital and got aborted. Thus she got caused mental agony to him by her acts.

2

Though he tried to reunion with the respondent, she never joined him to lead marital life with him. Hence, the petition.

3. The respondent filed counter admitting the marital relationship with the petitioner and denied other material averments of the petition. She stated that the petitioner used to harass her to bring

additional dowry from her parents, when she refused for the same, the

petitioner beat him and that it leads to abortion of her pregnancy. On 21.1.2012 the respondent and her parents went to the house of petitioner, he refused to allow her and demanded her to bring

Rs.50,000/- from her parents and since then she has been residing with her parents. Hence, she prayed to dismiss the petition.

4. During the course of trial, the petitioner himself examined as PW.1. The brother-in-law and mediator examined as

P.Ws.2 and 3. Exs.A1 and A2 marked. To rebut the evidence of the

Petitioner, the respondent herself examined as R.W.1. Her brother-in- law examined as R.W.2. No document was marked on her behalf.

5.Both the counsel filed written arguments.

6.Upon considering the rival contentions, the point for consideration is: Whether the petitioner has established that he was treated cruelty and deserted by the respondent and he is entitled for dissolution of marriage U/s.10 (1) (ix) and (x) of Divorce Act as prayed for?

7.POINT:

The specific contention of the petitioner is that the respondent is not interested to lead marital life with him and not interested for procreation of children and that there were disputes arose between them. He is having love and affection towards his wife, but the respondent used to go to her parents house frequently and not cooperating with him in leading marital life. He further contends that in

May 2011 the respondent conceived, but she consumed pills for 3 abortion and there was bleeding and that she was taken to American

Hospital and joined her on 5.5.2011 and the doctors advised that the baby was healthy and admonished her. On the same day her parents came there and taken her to Gannavaram hospital. Thereafter she did not turn up to join him even though he made efforts through Pws.2 and 3. He further contends that she filed false cases against him and his family members which caused mental agony to him and that he prayed to allow his petition.

8. The specific contention of the respondent is that the petitioner used to harassing her for additional dowry of Rs.50,000/- and beat her indiscriminately and that she was got bleeding and fell down and that it leads to abortion. She further contends that she went to petitioner’s house along with her parents on 21.1.2012 and that he demanded he to bring Rs.50,000/- and necked out her from the house. Respondent further contends that she is ready and wiling to join him as there is no fault on her. Her parents presented

Rs.2,00,000/- towards dowry and 3 sovereigns of gold and gold ring and spent Rs.1,00,000/- towards marriage expenses and also sent her with Saresaman to the house of the petitioner. Respondent further contends that even without satisfying the same, he demanded

Rs.50,000/- for reunion with him and that there were disputes arose between them, even though she is ready to join with him. The petitioner not allowed her and she never harassed him and she prayed to dismiss the petition.

9. To prove their contention, the petitioner himself examined as Pw1. his chief affidavit is replica of his pleadings. In the cross- examination of Pw1 he admitted that he is working as teacher, the respondent is also working in a private school prior to marriage and he met the respondent in the Church of Gannavaram and got acquaintance with her. Through mediation of a pastor of the said 4 church, he got married her. He further admitted that he used to visit the house in between office timings and observed that the respondent was sleeping even after 10 A.M and not attending house hold work. He came to know in the 1st week of May 2011 that the respondent conceived. He further contends that he was not having evidence to show he was taken her to the American hospital for treatment and she consumed the medicines to avoid her pregnancy and that there was bleeding. He further admitted that he visited her parents house and came to know that her pregnancy was aborted. He went to his in laws house accompanied by elders. The respondent told that she did not like children and conceiving and for that matter the disputes arose. He further contends that there are no quarrels between his mother and respondent and denied other suggestions.

10. The petitioner examined Pw2 who is neighbour to his house. As per his version, respondent not joined with him after left the house in May 2011. He further admitted that he did not visit the hospital when the respondent taken hospital due to stomach pain and he came to know through the petitioner and his father that the respondent went to her maternal home on her volition before going to mediation pleads ignorance about the disputes between respondent and petitioner.

11. Pw3 is brother in law of the petitioner. As per his evidence he was present at the time of marriage talks and both are agreed that they will bare marriage expenses of their own. The petitioner and respondent lived together for a period of 3 months after marriage and he pleaded ignorance about stomach pain suffered by respondent on 5.5.2011. But he stated that he came to know that the respondent joined in hospital at 11 A.M on 5.5.2011. He further admitted that on the same day evening the parents of the respondent came to hospital and taken her to their house. He and other elders tried to settle the 5 disputes between petitioner and respondent 2 times at his house and 3 times at Gannavaram. He further admitted that he was not present on 21.1.2012 when there was quarrel between petitioner and respondent and that the petitioner refused to take back the respondent to lead marital life. He further admitted that he came to know through the petitioner the respondent had not shown any interest and that there were disputes arose in between them.

12. To rebut the evidence of petitioner, the respondent herself examined as Rw1. She admitted that prior to marriage the petitioner used to visit Gannavaram Church and made marriage proposal through pastor of the church. She is working as teacher in Private school prior to the marriage and their marriage was performed as per Christian

Rites. She further admitted that the petitioner is residing at

Bhimanavaripeta, Vijayawada. As per their custom the marriage expenses have to be incurred by the family of bride. She denied other suggestions that she herself got aborted pregnancy as she was not interested to procreation of children. As per her version the neighbours had taken her to hospital on 5.5.2011. She further admitted that her parents came to the American hospital on the same day and taken her to their house. Her parents taken her from American hospital to

Gannavaram hospital and denied other suggestions that her pregnancy was terminated in Gannavaram hospital. But she admitted that after filing divorce OP by the petitioner, she filed 498 A case against the petitioner and his family members. The sister of the petitioner is residing at Gunadala separately from the petitioner’s family. She denied a suggestion that she harassed the petitioner and his family members and refused to join him on 5.5.2011 and that the petitioner filed the present petition.

6

13. Admitted facts:

The marriage of the petitioner and respondent was performed on 16.12.2010 as per Christian Rites and it was held by a pastor of the said church and performed their marriage. Ex.A1 is the wedding card and Ex.A2 is the marriage certificate proves the version of the petitioner that their marriage was held in a church as per Christian

Rites.

14. The specific contention of the respondent that he parents had given Rs.2,00,000/- dowry and presented gold ornaments and also spent Rs.1,00,000/- towards marriage expenses. To prove the same she examined her brother in law on her behalf. As per his evidence, his father in law sold away agricultural land prior to marriage and given dowry to the petitioner. Admittedly the father was not come forwards on behalf of the respondent to show he had given

Rs.2,00,000/- dowry and presented gold ornaments. On the other hand, the respondent herself admitted that in their caste custom, the bride has to be bare the marriage expenses. Her farther is a retired teacher. It is also evident on record that the petitioner got acquaintance with the respondent at Gannavaram Church and through

Pastor he got married her. There is no specific evidence on record to show the father of the respondent had given dowry to the petitioner.

On the other hand, soon after the marriage, the respondent joined with petitioner to lead marital life at her in-laws house. As per admission of R.W.1, the younger sister of the petitioner is residing separately at Gunadala. There is no dispute that the petitioner was joined in American Hospital on 5.5.2011 and on the same day the parents of respondent taken away her to their house.

15. The specific allegation of the petitioner is that the respondent not interested to procreation of children and that consumed pills due to which she got bleeding and that he was taken 7 her to American Hospital. But R.W.1 stated in the cross-examination that neighbours taken her to American Hospital, but not the petitioner and his family members. To prove the same she was not examined any independent witnesses. In turn R.W.1 admitted that the parents of the respondent came to American Hospital on the same day and taken away her to Gannavaram hospital. As per version of the petitioner the entire file of record is with the respondent only. The respondent stated that she was not treated by the doctors at American Hospital and no test was conducted to her; as such there is no such documents. She stated that that she got reeling sensation and that she was fell down, immediately she was shifted to American hospital and she got bleeding. She further admitted that at the time she was carrying 7 weeks of pregnancy. The same was not denied by the counsel for the respondent in the cross-examination of Pw1.

16. On the other hand, it is the case of the respondent that the petitioner and his family members harassed her to bring Rs.50,000/- from her parents house and abused her, due to which she fell down and it leads to abortion. But she failed to give any report against the petitioner and his family members immediately after the incident and she failed to produce the record to show her pregnancy was miscarried, but not aborted by her. On the other hand, she admitted that her parents shifted from American hospital to Gannavaram on the same day. But not produced any evidence to prove her version. But there is evidence on record to show that petitioner made efforts to reunion with the respondent through mediators i.e. Pws.2 and 3, but she was not joined with him. On the other hand, she contends that on 21.1.2012 she went to the house of the petitioner to join him and that he refused to join with her and demand of Rs.50,000/-. Even then she was not given report immediately after such incident. As per her version, after filing divorce OP by the petitioner, she filed 498 A case 8 against him and his family members. R.W.1 further admitted that sister of petitioner residing separately away from his parents house. In the above circumstances the respondent herself refused to join with the petitioner to lead marital life after termination of pregnancy on 5.5.2011 and also caused mental agony to him by filing criminal cases against him and his family members, by adding his sister who is residing separately from the petitioner’s family.

17. The learned counsel for the respondent relied a decision in

Gajendrasinh Hemtuji Chavda Vs. Peenakunver reported in III

(2015) DMC 514 (DB)(Gujarat). Where their lordship held in para “11. Further, this court, in the case of Prajapathi Ganeshji V. Hastuben Hemraj, reported in 1967 GLR 966, has observed and held that one of the purposes behind marriage may have been to procreate children in old times, but absence of achieving the same with marriage solemnized amongst Hindus, at no time entitled the husband to having his marriage dissolved much less annulled. Not only no such law prevailed before as to enable a husband to get divorce in case she were not able to beget children by reason of such absence of uterus, but no annulment of marriage on that account was ever suggested. No such ground for divorce is also made available to the husband under the present Act. It was further observed that in the instant case it was clearly established that the wife did not lack that capacity to consummate marriage with her husband after she underwent operations. Much though, therefore, she was not capable of procreating she having no uterus or cervix, that does not render her ‘impotent’ under Section 12 (1) (a) of the Act.

12. Thus, on overall consideration of the facts and circumstances of the present case, we are of the opinion that the learned Family Court has not committed any error in dismissing the suit filed by the appellants seeking decree of divorce. The present appeal is, therefore, dismissed. No order as to costs.”

The above said case is not applicable to the facts of present case as the respondent herself refused to join the petitioner even after mediation and failed to prove that the petitioner insisted her to bring

Rs.50,000/- to rejoin with him before elders and also on 21.1.2012 and that she was constrained to live along with her parents without any default on her part. Once the respondent terminated her pregnancy and failed to produce any sufficient evidence on record to 9 show her pregnancy was miscarried due to other reasons as the entire case file is available with her, but she did not choose to produce the same before court. Therefore the reasons for not producing such documents were known by her only and it clearly shows that the respondent herself not interested to join with the petitioner and also caused mental agony to him even though he made efforts through elders i.e. Pws.2 and 3. In the above circumstances the petitioner is entitled for divorce from the respondent on the ground of cruelty and desertion.

18. In the result the petition is allowed, dissolving the marriage of petitioner and respondent dt:16.12.2010 by granting divorce U/s 10 (1) (ix) (x) of Divorce Act.

Dictated to Stenographer, Grade-I, transcribed by him,

corrected and pronounced by me in open court, this the 16th day of February, 2016.

JUDGE, FAMILY COURT,

VIJAYAWADA.

APPENDIX OF EVIDENCE

WITNESS EXAMINED FOR

PETITIONER: RESPONDENT

P.W.1: B.Srinivasa Rao RW1: B.Bindu Bhargavi P.W.2: Basaveswara Rao R.W.2: G.Rambabu P.W.3: V.Nagabhushanam

EXHIBITS MARKED FOR

PETITIONER :

Ex.A1: Wedding Card Ex.A2: Marriage certificate copy

RESPONDENT : Nil

Judge, F.C-cum-IV

ADJ,VJA.

10

IN THE FAMILY COURT- CUM-IV ADDL.DISTRICT & SESSIONS JUDGE’S

COURT AT VIJAYAWADA

Present: Smt V.B.Nirmala Geethamba, B.A., LL.M.,

Judge, Family Court-cum-IV Addl. District and

Sessions Judge, Vijayawada.

Tuesday, 16th day of February, 2016.

O.P.No.323/2013

Between:-

Bandi Srinivasa Rao, S/o Prasad Rao, Christian, 33

years,Privateemployee,D.No.4-35-13/A, .. Petitioner

Balagamsettyvaristreet,Bhimanavaripet, Vijayawada -9

And

Bandi Bindu Bhargavi, W/o Srinivasa Rao, D/o Betapudi Mojes, Retired Teacher, Christian, 29 years, House wife, D.No.19-47, Chenchula colony, …Respondent. Kothapet, Gannavaram, Krishna Dt.

This petition filed by the petitioner U/s. 10 (1) (ix) and

(x) of Divorce Act for dissolution of the marriage inter-se the petitioner and respondent dated 16.12.2010 by passing a decree of divorce on the ground of cruelty and desertion.

Petition Presented on: 3.6.2013

This petition is coming on 3.2.2016 for hearing before me in the presence of Sri Nutakki Udya Kumar, B.Neeraja, Advocates, for the petitioner and of Sri B.Srinivasa Reddy, Sri P.Ambedkar, Advocates for the respondent; and upon perusing the petition, counter, written arguments, and other material on record, having stood over till this day for consideration, this Court doth order and:

DECREE

i)that the petition be and the same is hereby allowed; ii)that the marriage of petitioner and respondent held on 16.12.2010 is hereby dissolved by granting decree of divorce U/s.10 (1) (ix) and (x) of Divorce Act.

GIVEN UNDER MY HAND AND THE SEAL OF THIS COURT THIS

THE 16th day of February, 2016.

JUDGE, FAMILY COURT,

VIJAYAWADA.

IN THE FAMILY COURT- CUM-IV ADDL.DISTRICT & SESSIONS

JUDGE’S COURT AT VIJAYAWADA

Present: Smt V.B.Nirmala Geethamba, B.A., LL.M.,

Judge, Family Court-cum-IV Addl. District and

Sessions Judge, Vijayawada.

Tuesday, 16th day of February, 2016.

M.C.No.188/2013

Between:-

1. Dasari Manjula, W/o Syam, Hindu, 34 years, House wife, D.No.6-13/7-6, TSP Street, Wynchipet, Vijayawada -1.

2. Dasari Nalini Priya @ Blessy, 4 years

(2nd petitioner being minor rep. by his mother 1st .. Petitioners

petitioner )

And

Dasari Syam, S/o Late Kanta Rao, Hindu, 42 years, D.No.36-8-36, Sudarshan Street, Nehru Nagar, …Respondent. Woodpet, Vijayawada

This petition is coming on 4.2.2016 for hearing before me in the presence of Sri C.Prasanna Kumar, Advocate, for the petitioners and of Sri S.V.Paul Rees, Advocate, for the respondent; and upon perusing the petition, counter, and other material on record, written arguments, having stood over till this day for consideration, this Court made the following:

ORDER

This is a petition filed U/s.125 Cr.P.C. claiming monthly allowance of Rs.10,000/- each to the petitioners 1 and 2 from the date of petition.

2. The petitioners’ case in precise is 1st petitioner was married to respondent on 18.5.2005 at Vijayawada as per Christian rites. Out of their wedlock, they were blessed with the 2nd petitioner. Later the respondent and his parents used to demand her to bring additional dowry from her parents and that she filed case against them. She also filed D.V.C.No.33/2011 against the respondent. Later the respondent compromised with her and later they put up separate family and lived some time. Later on 13.5.2013 the respondent harassed for additional dowry and that she gave report to Suryaraopet P.S. in Cr.No.176/2013 2

U/s.498-A IPC. Later the respondent developed illegal contact with other woman and neglected the petitioners.

3. The respondent is working in Wipro as Service Engineer in

Computers and earning Rs.30,000/- p.m. The petitioners are unable to maintain themselves. Hence, the petition.

4. The respondent filed counter admitting that marital relationship with the 1st petitioner and they were blessed with the 2nd petitioner and denied all other material averments of the petition. He stated that the 1st petitioner used to demand him to put up separate family by leaving his parents. She also given reports to Police

U/s.498-A IPC case against him and his family members and also filed

D.V.C case against him. The 1st petitioner herself deserted him and went to her parents house without any reason and that he is not liable to pay any maintenance to them and prayed to dismiss the petition.

5.During the course of trial, the petitioner herself examined as P.W.1. Ex.P1 to P4 marked. To rebut the evidence of petitioners, the respondent himself examined as R.W.1. No documents marked on his behalf.

6.Both counsel present and heard.

7.Upon considering the rival contentions, the point for consideration is:

Whether the respondent is liable to pay monthly allowance to the petitioners as prayed by them U/s.125 of Cr.P.C.?

8.POINT:

The specific contention of the petitioners counsel is that the respondent is working in Wipro as Mechanical Engineer and also doing business and earning not less than Rs.40,000/- p.m and he is also having house and that she prayed to award maintenance to the petitioners. He further argued that the respondent himself neglected 3 the petitioners to maintain her as the parents of respondent not interested with the marriage of the respondent with the 1st petitioner and he himself put up separate. He further argued that respondent himself harassed the 1st petitioner at the instigation of his mother and brothers. Due to harassment she lodged a complaint before

Machavaram P.S. for the offence Us/498-A IPC and also filed DVC 33/2011. Thereafter they entered into compromise before Lok Adalat and lived together separately by taking house D.No.34-4-25,

Kasturibaipet, Vijayawada. Even then there is no change in the attitude of the respondent and he necked out from the petitioner No.1 from the house on 12.5.2013. Again she was constrained to lodge complaint against him in Suryaraopet P.S. on 13.5.2013 U/s.498-A IPC and the same is registered as Cr.No.176/2013 as he was neglected them.

9.It is the case of the respondent that their marriage was performed on 18.5.2005 as per Christian rites. Later she joined him in joint family to lead marital life and requested him to take a separate house for their privacy and also lived some time as illatum son-in-law in the house of the 1st petitioner. He further contends that the 1st petitioner used to treating him as money maker but not discharged her duties as dutiful wife. The sister of 1st petitioner is Advocate by hearing her words, the 1st petitioner used to give false report against him and in 2007 she had given first report and thereby they were compromised in the year 2008 and again the 1st petitioner given a report against him in Machavaram and the same was withdrawn by her again she had given a report on 18.2.2011 at Machavaram P.S. in Cr.No.83/2011 thereafter the case was compromised. He further admitted that she filed D.V.C.No.33/2011 before CMM Court, Vijayawada and it is pending. He further contends that due to bright future of his daughter, he entered into compromise before Lok adalat in the year 4 2012 and put up separate family at Kasturibaipet in August 2012 even then also the 1st petitioner not cooperating with him and not allowed him to take with his parents and also brothers.

10.The respondent further contends that his brother met with an accident. The 1st petitioner herself left the conjugal life in

February 2013 without any sufficient reason and filed false case against him for the offence U/s.498-A IPC and it is pending. Now he is only drawing Rs.8,000/- p.m. and he is residing in a rented house. He further contends that the 1st petitioner is working as teacher and earning Rs.7,000/- p.m. and prayed to pass appropriate orders.

11.Admitted facts:

The marriage between 1st petitioner and respondent was held on 18.5.2005 at Vijayawada as per Christian rites. The respondent admitted the parents were not interested to marry the 1st petitioner and that they were resided separately from their house under Ex.P4 as well as admitted in the cross-examination. Out of their wedlock, the 2nd petitioner was born.

12.The specific contention of the 1st petitioner is that respondent not provided maintenance to them in the house and also abusing them in filthy language and there was manhandling at the instance of his parents. The specific contention of the respondent is that the 1st petitioner not allow him to talk with his parents and also brothers and used to harassing her by filing false cases against him and that he suffered lot the 1st petitioner herself left the conjugal life.

13.To prove their contentions, 1st petitioner herself examined as P.W.1. She admitted in the cross-examination that the family of the respondent is a joint family her mother-in-law blessed with 6 male and 2 female children. She admitted that she and respondent lived together in a rented house at Machavaram, Woodpet, Vijayawada. As per her version, she lived along with her in-laws for a period of 2 years 5 after marriage and the respondent is elder son to her in-laws. She further admitted that her father is no more likewise the father of respondent was no more at the time of marriage. The mother of 1st petitioner is housewife and brother-in-law of respondent are doing job.

The younger brother of the respondent is a lorry driver by name

Nikodam. She further contends that the respondent is authorized dealer in DS Wipro Company, Vijayawada. She denied a suggestion that she filed several cases against the respondent and also restricted his movements to do job away from Vijayawada and also not allowed him to talk with his parents and brothers. She denied a suggestion that she is in the habit of filing false cases and that police not registered her case. But she admitted that she approached

Commissioner of Police, intern it was forwarded to concerned police station on 7.8.2015 and it was registered as CC.1043/15 and it is pending. She denied other suggestions.

14.The respondent himself examined as Rw.1. He admitted that he had not given any report against the 1st petitioner to show she had given false report against him, so also not issued any legal notice to the 1st petitioner. He further admitted that his daughter is residing along with the 1st petitioner. His daughter is studying Sri Chaitanya

Techno School. As per version of 1st petitioner the respondent deposited Rs.60,000/- for educational expenses of 2nd petitioner. But as per version of respondent he deposited the said amount for future maintenance of 2nd petitioner. He further admitted that he is doing job in Nex private Limited computers and that Company was closed and denied other suggestions that he is doing business under the name and style D.S. Electronics, Woodpeta, Vijayawada. He further admitted that 1st petitioner not having any properties.

15.In view of the evidence on record it shows that the 1st petitioner and respondent put up separate family away from the 6 mother of respondent after 2 years of their marriage, till that they lead marital life in a joint family consisting of 4 rooms. It proves the version of petitioner No.1 that as there is no sufficient accommodation, respondent put up a separate family, but not at the instance of the 1st petitioner. As per Ex.P.4 the mother of respondent not interested in marriage of 1st petitioner and respondent. The respondent family is a joint family and he is having brothers and sisters. As per his version 1st petitioner not allowed him to talk with his parents and prevent him to help his brothers. But as per admissions of Pw.1 itself shows that the brothers of respondent doing job and one of the brother is a lorry driver. Admittedly the respondent not mentioned in his chief affidavit that the 1st petitioner not allowed him when his brother was met with an accident to see him and that he went to see his brother and return three days after the incident and that the 1st petitioner not present in the house. Thereafter they were not reunion lastly. It is also evidence on record the 1st petitioner had given a report against the respondent

before Machavaram P.S, on 18.2.2011 and that crime was

compromised before Lok Adalat and they put up separate family at

Kastudibaipeta, Vijayawada in August, 2012. After some time in

February, 2013 the 1st petitioner had given report again against the respondent before Suryaraopeta P.S. in crime nO.176/13 and it is pending.

16.The specific contention of the respondent is that on that day his younger brother met with an accident and that she was not allowed him to attend him. The same was given in the form of suggestions at the time of cross-examination of Pw.1 by the Counsel

for the respondent. But the respondent not stated the same in his

chief affidavit for that occasion only the first petitioner left him when he went to see his welfare of his younger brother who met with an accident. Intern the respondent himself admitted that due to vexation 7 of criminal cases filed by the 1st petitioner, he himself left the conjugal life and living separately from her. On the other hand, the criminal case is pending against the respondent before concerned court. Apart from that the respondent admitted that he has not filed any document to show 1st petitioner is working as Teacher in Jack & Jill school and earning Rs.7,000/-p.m.

17.On the other hand, he admitted that Jack and Jill school is

Railway school. If really the 1st petitioner is working in that school it is easy to summon the documents from Railway school to prove her income. But the respondent failed to prove the same. On the other hand, it shows that the respondent deposited Rs.60,000/- in the account of 1st petitioner. As per his version he deposited the said amount for future maintenance of 2nd petitioner. Admittedly there is no evidence for what purpose he deposited Rs.60,000/- in the name of 2nd petitioner and on what date he deposited the said amounts to come to a conculsion that Rs.60,000/- deposit to the minor of the 2nd petitioner. It is also an admitted fact that 2nd petitioner is studying in

Sri Chaitanya Techno school and she is a minor living separately from him as he himself came out from the house due to criminal cases filed by first petitioner against him. On the other hand, he had not produced any evidence to show the 1st petitioner not allowed him to see his parents and also to attend him brother’s health in February, 2015. In the above circumstances the respondent is liable to pay maintenance to the petitioners. This court awarded interim monthly allowance to the petitioners in Crl.M.P.No. 146/2014 in

M.C.No.188/2013 at Rs.2,000/- to the 1st petitioner and Rs.1,500/- to

the 2nd petitioner till disposal of M.C.No.188/2013.

18.The respondent admitted that he worked in Nex private limited of computers. He pleads that it is closed. But he was not produced any document to prove the same and that he is only earning 8

Rs.8,000/-p.m. In the above circumstances respondent is laible to pay maintenance of rs.3,000/- to the 1st petitioner and rs.4,000/- to the 2nd petitioner from the date of order.

19.In the result, the petitioner is allowed in part , directing the respondent to pay monthly allowance of Rs.3,000/- to the 1st petitioner and Rs.4,000/- to the 2nd petitioner from the date of order.

Dictated to Stenographer, Grade-I, transcribed by him,

corrected and pronounced by me in open court, this the 16 th day of February, 2016.

JUDGE, FAMILY COURT,

VIJAYAWADA.

APPENDIX OF EVIDENCE

WITNESS EXAMINED FOR

PETITIONERS: RESPONDENT P.W.1: Dasari Manjula R.W.1: Dasari Syam

EXHIBITS MARKED FOR

PETITIONERS:

Ex.P1: Wedding card Ex.P2: Marriage photo Ex.P3: Marriage certificate Ex.P4: Report of protection officer.

RESPONDENT: Nil

Judge, F.C-cum-IV

ADJ,VJA.

9

IN THE FAMILY COURT- CUM-IV ADDL.DISTRICT & SESSIONS JUDGE’S

COURT AT VIJAYAWADA

Present: Smt V.B.Nirmala Geethamba, B.A., LL.M.,

Judge, Family Court-cum-IV Addl. District and

Sessions Judge, Vijayawada.

Tuesday, 16th day of February, 2016.

M.C.No.188/2013

Between:-

1. Dasari Manjula, W/o Syam, Hindu, 34 years, House wife, D.No.6-13/7-6, TSP Street, Wynchipet, Vijayawada -1.

2. Dasari Nalini Priya @ Blessy, 4 years

(2nd petitioner being minor rep. by his mother 1st .. Petitioners

petitioner )

And

Dasari Syam, S/o Late Kanta Rao, Hindu, 42 years, D.No.36-8-36, Sudarshan Street, Nehru Nagar, …Respondent. Woodpet, Vijayawada

This is a petition filed U/s.125 Cr.P.C. claiming monthly allowance of Rs.10,000/- each to the petitioners 1 and 2 from the date of petition.

Petition Presented on: 8.8.2013

This petition is coming on 4.2.2016 for hearing before me in the presence of Sri C.Prasanna Kumar, Advocate, for the petitioners and of Sri S.V.Paul Rees, Advocate, for the respondent; and upon perusing the petition, counter, and other material on record, written arguments, having stood over till this day for consideration, this Court doth order and:

DECREE

i)that the petition be and same is hereby allowed; ii)that the respondent is hereby directed to pay monthly allowance of Rs.3,000/- to the 1st petitioner and Rs.4,000/- to the 2nd petitioner from the date of order.

GIVEN UNDER MY HAND AND THE SEAL OF THIS COURT THIS

THE 16th day of February, 2016.

JUDGE, FAMILY COURT,

VIJAYAWADA.

IN THE FAMILY COURT- CUM-IV ADDL.DISTRICT & SESSIONS

JUDGE’S COURT AT VIJAYAWADA

Present: Smt V.B.Nirmala Geethamba, B.A., LL.M.,

Judge, Family Court-cum-IV Addl. District and

Sessions Judge, Vijayawada.

Tuesday, 16th day of February, 2016.

M.C.No.188/2013

Between:-

1. Dasari Manjula, W/o Syam, Hindu, 34 years, House wife, D.No.6-13/7-6, TSP Street, Wynchipet, Vijayawada -1.

2. Dasari Nalini Priya @ Blessy, 4 years

(2nd petitioner being minor rep. by his mother 1st .. Petitioners

petitioner )

And

Dasari Syam, S/o Late Kanta Rao, Hindu, 42 years, D.No.36-8-36, Sudarshan Street, Nehru Nagar, …Respondent. Woodpet, Vijayawada

This petition is coming on 4.2.2016 for hearing before me in the presence of Sri C.Prasanna Kumar, Advocate, for the petitioners and of Sri S.V.Paul Rees, Advocate, for the respondent; and upon perusing the petition, counter, and other material on record, written arguments, having stood over till this day for consideration, this Court made the following:

ORDER

This is a petition filed U/s.125 Cr.P.C. claiming monthly allowance of Rs.10,000/- each to the petitioners 1 and 2 from the date of petition.

2. The petitioners’ case in precise is 1st petitioner was married to respondent on 18.5.2005 at Vijayawada as per Christian rites. Out of their wedlock, they were blessed with the 2nd petitioner. Later the respondent and his parents used to demand her to bring additional dowry from her parents and that she filed case against them. She also filed D.V.C.No.33/2011 against the respondent. Later the respondent compromised with her and later they put up separate family and lived some time. Later on 13.5.2013 the respondent harassed for additional dowry and that she gave report to Suryaraopet P.S. in Cr.No.176/2013 2

U/s.498-A IPC. Later the respondent developed illegal contact with other woman and neglected the petitioners.

3. The respondent is working in Wipro as Service Engineer in

Computers and earning Rs.30,000/- p.m. The petitioners are unable to maintain themselves. Hence, the petition.

4. The respondent filed counter admitting that marital relationship with the 1st petitioner and they were blessed with the 2nd petitioner and denied all other material averments of the petition. He stated that the 1st petitioner used to demand him to put up separate family by leaving his parents. She also given reports to Police

U/s.498-A IPC case against him and his family members and also filed

D.V.C case against him. The 1st petitioner herself deserted him and went to her parents house without any reason and that he is not liable to pay any maintenance to them and prayed to dismiss the petition.

5.During the course of trial, the petitioner herself examined as P.W.1. Ex.P1 to P4 marked. To rebut the evidence of petitioners, the respondent himself examined as R.W.1. No documents marked on his behalf.

6.Both counsel present and heard.

7.Upon considering the rival contentions, the point for consideration is:

Whether the respondent is liable to pay monthly allowance to the petitioners as prayed by them U/s.125 of Cr.P.C.?

8.POINT:

The specific contention of the petitioners counsel is that the respondent is working in Wipro as Mechanical Engineer and also doing business and earning not less than Rs.40,000/- p.m and he is also having house and that she prayed to award maintenance to the petitioners. He further argued that the respondent himself neglected 3 the petitioners to maintain her as the parents of respondent not interested with the marriage of the respondent with the 1st petitioner and he himself put up separate. He further argued that respondent himself harassed the 1st petitioner at the instigation of his mother and brothers. Due to harassment she lodged a complaint before

Machavaram P.S. for the offence Us/498-A IPC and also filed DVC 33/2011. Thereafter they entered into compromise before Lok Adalat and lived together separately by taking house D.No.34-4-25,

Kasturibaipet, Vijayawada. Even then there is no change in the attitude of the respondent and he necked out from the petitioner No.1 from the house on 12.5.2013. Again she was constrained to lodge complaint against him in Suryaraopet P.S. on 13.5.2013 U/s.498-A IPC and the same is registered as Cr.No.176/2013 as he was neglected them.

9.It is the case of the respondent that their marriage was performed on 18.5.2005 as per Christian rites. Later she joined him in joint family to lead marital life and requested him to take a separate house for their privacy and also lived some time as illatum son-in-law in the house of the 1st petitioner. He further contends that the 1st petitioner used to treating him as money maker but not discharged her duties as dutiful wife. The sister of 1st petitioner is Advocate by hearing her words, the 1st petitioner used to give false report against him and in 2007 she had given first report and thereby they were compromised in the year 2008 and again the 1st petitioner given a report against him in Machavaram and the same was withdrawn by her again she had given a report on 18.2.2011 at Machavaram P.S. in Cr.No.83/2011 thereafter the case was compromised. He further admitted that she filed D.V.C.No.33/2011 before CMM Court, Vijayawada and it is pending. He further contends that due to bright future of his daughter, he entered into compromise before Lok adalat in the year 4 2012 and put up separate family at Kasturibaipet in August 2012 even then also the 1st petitioner not cooperating with him and not allowed him to take with his parents and also brothers.

10.The respondent further contends that his brother met with an accident. The 1st petitioner herself left the conjugal life in

February 2013 without any sufficient reason and filed false case against him for the offence U/s.498-A IPC and it is pending. Now he is only drawing Rs.8,000/- p.m. and he is residing in a rented house. He further contends that the 1st petitioner is working as teacher and earning Rs.7,000/- p.m. and prayed to pass appropriate orders.

11.Admitted facts:

The marriage between 1st petitioner and respondent was held on 18.5.2005 at Vijayawada as per Christian rites. The respondent admitted the parents were not interested to marry the 1st petitioner and that they were resided separately from their house under Ex.P4 as well as admitted in the cross-examination. Out of their wedlock, the 2nd petitioner was born.

12.The specific contention of the 1st petitioner is that respondent not provided maintenance to them in the house and also abusing them in filthy language and there was manhandling at the instance of his parents. The specific contention of the respondent is that the 1st petitioner not allow him to talk with his parents and also brothers and used to harassing her by filing false cases against him and that he suffered lot the 1st petitioner herself left the conjugal life.

13.To prove their contentions, 1st petitioner herself examined as P.W.1. She admitted in the cross-examination that the family of the respondent is a joint family her mother-in-law blessed with 6 male and 2 female children. She admitted that she and respondent lived together in a rented house at Machavaram, Woodpet, Vijayawada. As per her version, she lived along with her in-laws for a period of 2 years 5 after marriage and the respondent is elder son to her in-laws. She further admitted that her father is no more likewise the father of respondent was no more at the time of marriage. The mother of 1st petitioner is housewife and brother-in-law of respondent are doing job.

The younger brother of the respondent is a lorry driver by name

Nikodam. She further contends that the respondent is authorized dealer in DS Wipro Company, Vijayawada. She denied a suggestion that she filed several cases against the respondent and also restricted his movements to do job away from Vijayawada and also not allowed him to talk with his parents and brothers. She denied a suggestion that she is in the habit of filing false cases and that police not registered her case. But she admitted that she approached

Commissioner of Police, intern it was forwarded to concerned police station on 7.8.2015 and it was registered as CC.1043/15 and it is pending. She denied other suggestions.

14.The respondent himself examined as Rw.1. He admitted that he had not given any report against the 1st petitioner to show she had given false report against him, so also not issued any legal notice to the 1st petitioner. He further admitted that his daughter is residing along with the 1st petitioner. His daughter is studying Sri Chaitanya

Techno School. As per version of 1st petitioner the respondent deposited Rs.60,000/- for educational expenses of 2nd petitioner. But as per version of respondent he deposited the said amount for future maintenance of 2nd petitioner. He further admitted that he is doing job in Nex private Limited computers and that Company was closed and denied other suggestions that he is doing business under the name and style D.S. Electronics, Woodpeta, Vijayawada. He further admitted that 1st petitioner not having any properties.

15.In view of the evidence on record it shows that the 1st petitioner and respondent put up separate family away from the 6 mother of respondent after 2 years of their marriage, till that they lead marital life in a joint family consisting of 4 rooms. It proves the version of petitioner No.1 that as there is no sufficient accommodation, respondent put up a separate family, but not at the instance of the 1st petitioner. As per Ex.P.4 the mother of respondent not interested in marriage of 1st petitioner and respondent. The respondent family is a joint family and he is having brothers and sisters. As per his version 1st petitioner not allowed him to talk with his parents and prevent him to help his brothers. But as per admissions of Pw.1 itself shows that the brothers of respondent doing job and one of the brother is a lorry driver. Admittedly the respondent not mentioned in his chief affidavit that the 1st petitioner not allowed him when his brother was met with an accident to see him and that he went to see his brother and return three days after the incident and that the 1st petitioner not present in the house. Thereafter they were not reunion lastly. It is also evidence on record the 1st petitioner had given a report against the respondent

before Machavaram P.S, on 18.2.2011 and that crime was

compromised before Lok Adalat and they put up separate family at

Kastudibaipeta, Vijayawada in August, 2012. After some time in

February, 2013 the 1st petitioner had given report again against the respondent before Suryaraopeta P.S. in crime nO.176/13 and it is pending.

16.The specific contention of the respondent is that on that day his younger brother met with an accident and that she was not allowed him to attend him. The same was given in the form of suggestions at the time of cross-examination of Pw.1 by the Counsel

for the respondent. But the respondent not stated the same in his

chief affidavit for that occasion only the first petitioner left him when he went to see his welfare of his younger brother who met with an accident. Intern the respondent himself admitted that due to vexation 7 of criminal cases filed by the 1st petitioner, he himself left the conjugal life and living separately from her. On the other hand, the criminal case is pending against the respondent before concerned court. Apart from that the respondent admitted that he has not filed any document to show 1st petitioner is working as Teacher in Jack & Jill school and earning Rs.7,000/-p.m.

17.On the other hand, he admitted that Jack and Jill school is

Railway school. If really the 1st petitioner is working in that school it is easy to summon the documents from Railway school to prove her income. But the respondent failed to prove the same. On the other hand, it shows that the respondent deposited Rs.60,000/- in the account of 1st petitioner. As per his version he deposited the said amount for future maintenance of 2nd petitioner. Admittedly there is no evidence for what purpose he deposited Rs.60,000/- in the name of 2nd petitioner and on what date he deposited the said amounts to come to a conculsion that Rs.60,000/- deposit to the minor of the 2nd petitioner. It is also an admitted fact that 2nd petitioner is studying in

Sri Chaitanya Techno school and she is a minor living separately from him as he himself came out from the house due to criminal cases filed by first petitioner against him. On the other hand, he had not produced any evidence to show the 1st petitioner not allowed him to see his parents and also to attend him brother’s health in February, 2015. In the above circumstances the respondent is liable to pay maintenance to the petitioners. This court awarded interim monthly allowance to the petitioners in Crl.M.P.No. 146/2014 in

M.C.No.188/2013 at Rs.2,000/- to the 1st petitioner and Rs.1,500/- to

the 2nd petitioner till disposal of M.C.No.188/2013.

18.The respondent admitted that he worked in Nex private limited of computers. He pleads that it is closed. But he was not produced any document to prove the same and that he is only earning 8

Rs.8,000/-p.m. In the above circumstances respondent is laible to pay maintenance of rs.3,000/- to the 1st petitioner and rs.4,000/- to the 2nd petitioner from the date of order.

19.In the result, the petitioner is allowed in part , directing the respondent to pay monthly allowance of Rs.3,000/- to the 1st petitioner and Rs.4,000/- to the 2nd petitioner from the date of order.

Dictated to Stenographer, Grade-I, transcribed by him,

corrected and pronounced by me in open court, this the 16 th day of February, 2016.

JUDGE, FAMILY COURT,

VIJAYAWADA.

APPENDIX OF EVIDENCE

WITNESS EXAMINED FOR

PETITIONERS: RESPONDENT P.W.1: Dasari Manjula R.W.1: Dasari Syam

EXHIBITS MARKED FOR

PETITIONERS:

Ex.P1: Wedding card Ex.P2: Marriage photo Ex.P3: Marriage certificate Ex.P4: Report of protection officer.

RESPONDENT: Nil

Judge, F.C-cum-IV

ADJ,VJA.

9

IN THE FAMILY COURT- CUM-IV ADDL.DISTRICT & SESSIONS JUDGE’S

COURT AT VIJAYAWADA

Present: Smt V.B.Nirmala Geethamba, B.A., LL.M.,

Judge, Family Court-cum-IV Addl. District and

Sessions Judge, Vijayawada.

Tuesday, 16th day of February, 2016.

M.C.No.188/2013

Between:-

1. Dasari Manjula, W/o Syam, Hindu, 34 years, House wife, D.No.6-13/7-6, TSP Street, Wynchipet, Vijayawada -1.

2. Dasari Nalini Priya @ Blessy, 4 years

(2nd petitioner being minor rep. by his mother 1st .. Petitioners

petitioner )

And

Dasari Syam, S/o Late Kanta Rao, Hindu, 42 years, D.No.36-8-36, Sudarshan Street, Nehru Nagar, …Respondent. Woodpet, Vijayawada

This is a petition filed U/s.125 Cr.P.C. claiming monthly allowance of Rs.10,000/- each to the petitioners 1 and 2 from the date of petition.

Petition Presented on: 8.8.2013

This petition is coming on 4.2.2016 for hearing before me in the presence of Sri C.Prasanna Kumar, Advocate, for the petitioners and of Sri S.V.Paul Rees, Advocate, for the respondent; and upon perusing the petition, counter, and other material on record, written arguments, having stood over till this day for consideration, this Court doth order and:

DECREE

i)that the petition be and same is hereby allowed; ii)that the respondent is hereby directed to pay monthly allowance of Rs.3,000/- to the 1st petitioner and Rs.4,000/- to the 2nd petitioner from the date of order.

GIVEN UNDER MY HAND AND THE SEAL OF THIS COURT THIS

THE 16th day of February, 2016.

JUDGE, FAMILY COURT,

VIJAYAWADA.